It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- 33.3K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 16 November 2024 LSAT
- 14 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 632 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic

1 Like

pfjddream
Free Trial Member

I understand the difference between either or and either or but not both

I am confused about the diagramming aspect and not sure if my way is correct

Either or (implies possibly both)

So, I think of this in negative terms (absence of a sufficient condition)

not A -> B

not B -> A

A -> may or may not have B (so AB is also possible)

versus

Either or but not both

So, I think of this in positive terms (presence of sufficient condition)

A -> not B

B -> not A

In this case, there no other possibility (both AB can never be possible)

Is there a way to show this using double sided arrows or double not arrows? I am confused about that.

I know that double sided arrows (<-->) are used for biconditionals like "if and only if" and "if but only if"

and double not arrows (<-I->) are used for neither nor

Is my reasoning correct?

Somehow I think that I have gotten myself mixed up with all this conditional logic stuff

I am confused about the diagramming aspect and not sure if my way is correct

Either or (implies possibly both)

So, I think of this in negative terms (absence of a sufficient condition)

not A -> B

not B -> A

A -> may or may not have B (so AB is also possible)

versus

Either or but not both

So, I think of this in positive terms (presence of sufficient condition)

A -> not B

B -> not A

In this case, there no other possibility (both AB can never be possible)

Is there a way to show this using double sided arrows or double not arrows? I am confused about that.

I know that double sided arrows (<-->) are used for biconditionals like "if and only if" and "if but only if"

and double not arrows (<-I->) are used for neither nor

Is my reasoning correct?

Somehow I think that I have gotten myself mixed up with all this conditional logic stuff